The Witcher 2 only support 16:9 resolutions

Originally Posted by sakichop
Yes still no solid points there but I am glad you didn't rehash your car, apartment, marriage comparison.

If you fail to see the justice of my argument, that what can I do? But I too fail to see you solid points. So we're even in this matter.

Originally Posted by sakichop
I find it funny that I basically told you that I hope you can enjoy the game and you come back with it won't come close to being a good rpg and i'm a fanboy. Real nice.

Well I came back basically because of this.

If you really want to speak in terms of gameplay and that's what really matters to you, then you wouldn't pass up the chance to play what should be a great rpg. Just because of a graphical issue.

See we keep going in circles. And in the end you can't understand that this is not a simple graphical issue. It's only a simple graphic issue to the people who own, coincidently, a 16:9 monitor.
And I call you a fanboy, because usually fanboys only see the things by one side, and can never see the bad parts. Usually they assume (in case of gaming) before they even tried up the game, that game is the last wonder of the universe, and has no defects. Every time someone points out one defect, it's like if that someone was committing a sacrilege. I point one defect, and here you come like a paladin to defend the holy righteousness of the game. That's the behaviour of fanboy.
That's not nice.

Originally Posted by sakichop
Anyway I thought you were done. I will apologize for my positivity and return you to your regularly scheduled pessimism and negativity.

Do you really want me to comment this? C'mon….

Subjective or not, claiming The Witcher isn't an RPG is just silly.

Originally Posted by sakichop
"
The majority of you here have much more experience posting than I do so if I'm missing some forum etiquette please tell me what that is.

I don't think you're missing some forum etiquette. What is happening is that both are getting the things to much personally. I suggest that we continue and straight the things by pm.

EDIT: I've sent you a PM.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Subjective or not, claiming The Witcher isn't an RPG is just silly.

You see? Why I don't want to discuss this? You just called me silly, without even listening to my argument. Isn't that silly also?

Originally Posted by Von Paulus
You see? Why I don't want to discuss this? You just called me silly, without even listening to my argument. Isn't that silly also?

I could argue that Call of Duty isn't a first-person shooter, but I doubt anyone would want to listen.

Originally Posted by Von Paulus
You see? Why I don't want to discuss this? You just called me silly, without even listening to my argument. Isn't that silly also?

I discussed this in another thread previously, but I think it's relevant here: I suppose a lot of what makes an RPG to some and not to others comes down to what one enjoys from an RPG. For me, this means choice and consequence, as well as having a real effect on a game world; your role in how events play out actually carries weight and has a significant impact. To others, it's all about combat, stats, and complex character building. As I have mentioned previously, for me, The Witcher is far more of an RPG than something like Icewind Dale, but that's because combat, statistics, and complex rule systems aren't what defines an RPG for me. I certainly enjoy those elements quite a bit, but I avoid dismissing games as not being "true RPGs" if they use a different approach (such as having real-time combat, for example). So I won't say that "you're wrong," but that's just my personal take. The Witcher's design, which allows for an impressive amount of choice and consequence, makes it a great RPG in my eyes, and one of the best RPGs in the last 5 years.

Originally Posted by Nerevarine
I discussed this in another thread previously, but I think it's relevant here: I suppose a lot what makes an RPG to some and not to others comes down to what one enjoys from an RPG. For me, this means choice and consequence, as well as having a real effect on a game world; your role in how events play out actually carries weight and has a significant impact. To others, it's all about combat, stats, and complex character building. As I have mentioned previously, for me, The Witcher is far more of an RPG than something like Icewind Dale, but that's because combat, statistics, and complex rule systems aren't what defines an RPG for me. I certainly enjoy those elements quite a bit, but I avoid dismissing games as not being "true RPGs" if they use a different approach (such as having real-time combat, for example). So I won't say that "you're wrong," but that's just my personal take. The Witcher's design, which allows for an impressive amount of choice and consequence, makes it a great RPG in my eyes, and one of the best RPGs in the last 5 years.

Great post, I 100% agree. What an RPG is depends on who you ask. For me it is choice and consequence as well, for others it is something else.

I can certainly see why someone who considers D&D the pure RPG template would consider The Witcher an action game.

Originally Posted by Nerevarine
I discussed this in another thread previously, but I think it's relevant here: I suppose a lot what makes an RPG to some and not to others comes down to what one enjoys from an RPG. For me, this means choice and consequence, as well as having a real effect on a game world; your role in how events play out actually carries weight and has a significant impact. To others, it's all about combat, stats, and complex character building. As I have mentioned previously, for me, The Witcher is far more of an RPG than something like Icewind Dale, but that's because combat, statistics, and complex rule systems aren't what defines an RPG for me. I certainly enjoy those elements quite a bit, but I avoid dismissing games as not being "true RPGs" if they use a different approach (such as having real-time combat, for example). So I won't say that "you're wrong," but that's just my personal take. The Witcher's design, which allows for an impressive amount of choice and consequence, makes it a great RPG in my eyes, and one of the best RPGs in the last 5 years.

I have different criteria for what an rpg is depending on what kind of rpg it is.

In party based rpg's it's all about combat,races,classes,stats and rules. Party based combat is my combat of choice. I like to have a lot of classes and races since I will have a party to make and stats and rules go into combat.

In third or first person games where I only play 1 person I don't need a ton of classes or races because odds are I won't play the game enough times to use then all. Combat is usually faster and more hack-n- slash which i'm more ok with because I don't have to control multiple characters. so in these games choice and consequence, story and exploration become much more important to me.

I enjoy alchemy and crafting in all rpg's. Party banter and companion relationships can be fun but overall not a big deal for me. Obviously a lot of people must like that though as game seem to really concentrate on it.

Von Paulus Did you get my pm reply I thought I sent it but I don't see it in my pm section.

Originally Posted by sakichop
Von Paulus Did you get my pm reply I thought I sent it but I don't see it in my pm section.

Yes.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I could argue that Call of Duty isn't a first-person shooter, but I doubt anyone would want to listen.

You see that's a dangerous example. Because for some people, like Mr. Fernando Melo from Bioware, CoD does have RPG elements.

Oh wow! I read that faq a few days back and just ignored that part with aspect ratios. Everything but a few console ports support every ratio under the sun so why pay attention to that part??

I've got a 16:9 now but only because of the 3D stuff. If it weren't for that, I would still be clutching my monster CRT that could do any 4:3 resolution up to and including 2048x1536.

I'm hear to tell you that modern games do NOT require 16:9 - not if you've got that kind of resolution. They do like to have a lot of horizontal space for their UIs but I actually had more horizontal space on my 4:3, and it worked very nicely. (And being able to switch to other resolutions with NO scaling was wonderful!)

On the other side, though, I did get stuck with a game locked into 16:9 - namely Last Remnant. It was annoying for, oh, maybe an hour tops. After that I really didn't notice. There's a very good reason for that, too - because you ALWAYS have to deal with edges like that. In letterbox format you still have the edges of your monitor making a border on the right and left sides. There's always going to be an edge, it's just a matter of where those edges are going to be. In letterbox they shrink the image a bit and put edges on the top and bottom. All you've really lost when you go into letterbox format in a 4:3 is some resolution from that shrinking. Unless you've got a really old monitor displaying 1024x768, I don't think you're going to miss it that much.

The 'well I guess this game is really just an interactive movie' is a total red herring. Please. It doesn't matter if what you are looking at is a movie, a picture, or a game. It doesn't matter if it's on a monitor, a projector, or a TV, either. Heck, the same rules even apply for a photograph in a frame! It's nice to have the image fill the frame but, if you can't, you can just fill the extra space with a flat color and it will still be OK.

But back to the first side again… REALLY weird that the developers would do this! It may not be that bad but I've never heard of a game designed for PC that does this outside of pre-rendered cut-scenes. Why would they? If they are worried about having space for their UI then they should be worried about how many pixels you've got, not your aspect ratio. They did make a whole new engine for the game but it can't be THAT different than other engines! It still uses DirectX, after all. Curiouser and curiouser!

Originally Posted by sakichop

I enjoy alchemy and crafting in all rpg's. Party banter and companion relationships can be fun but overall not a big deal for me. Obviously a lot of people must like that though as game seem to really concentrate on it.

Since we are talking about what is an RPG: There is a point right here. Sakichop likes crafting - and I think crafting is the most useless aspect any RPGs have. That's the reason for example I always start to shake my head when people say Ultima VII was so great because you could bake bread. I just don't see any appeal in it. I don't even use crafting in games unless it's a byproduct of my exploration (Gothic, Risen) or important for the gameplay (Witcher).

And this is exactly the reason why finding a good RPG everyone agrees on is never easy.

Originally Posted by Roi Danton
Since we are talking about what is an RPG: There is a point right here. Sakichop likes crafting - and I think crafting is the most useless aspect any RPGs have. That's the reason for example I always start to shake my head when people say Ultima VII was so great because you could bake bread. I just don't see any appeal in it. I don't even use crafting in games unless it's a byproduct of my exploration (Gothic, Risen) or important for the gameplay (Witcher).

And this is exactly the reason why finding a good RPG everyone agrees on is never easy.

I generally approach crafting/alchemy in the same way. I would be much more interested in this gameplay aspect if it was more directly tied to gameplay - such as weapon upgrades in Deus Ex or (from what I've heard) Fallout: NV. This sort of "crafting" has a much more tangible effect on the gameplay and allows for more customization (another aspect of RPGs I love is being able to customize whatever the game will allow me to). But running around picking flowers to brew potions? No thanks… I'd rather just buy potions instead and be more productive with my adventuring

However, with that said, I can certainly see why alchemy/crafting is appealing to many players - it just doesn't really interest me, personally. Although The Witcher did such a great job with alchemy (in my opinion) that I actually spent quite a bit of time making the right potions that I felt I would need. So I guess if alchemy is implemented in an interesting way, I wind up enjoying it, but it still isn't something that excites me - it's more of a somewhat fun diversion.

Originally Posted by Roi Danton
Since we are talking about what is an RPG: There is a point right here. Sakichop likes crafting - and I think crafting is the most useless aspect any RPGs have. That's the reason for example I always start to shake my head when people say Ultima VII was so great because you could bake bread. I just don't see any appeal in it. I don't even use crafting in games unless it's a byproduct of my exploration (Gothic, Risen) or important for the gameplay (Witcher).

And this is exactly the reason why finding a good RPG everyone agrees on is never easy.

Yes I hear that a lot when I say I like crafting seems many people do not. I will say I agree about cooking food just so it will heal a few more hit points. I don't care for that.

Im more talking poitions and bombs. I don't think I could have beaten the witcher on hard without crafting though.

Originally Posted by Nerevarine
I generally approach crafting/alchemy in the same way. I would be much more interested in this gameplay aspect if it was more directly tied to gameplay - such as weapon upgrades in Deus Ex or (from what I've heard) Fallout: NV. This sort of "crafting" has a much more tangible effect on the gameplay and allows for more customization (another aspect of RPGs I love is being able to customize whatever the game will allow me to).

Two Worlds II had a pretty cool system where you could break down any weapon or armor into its raw materials (wood, steel, iron, leather etc) and then use the raw materials to upgrade any weapon or armor piece. It was a good way to make all those extra weapons and armor you get useful and also to get rid of them without having to run to the store every 5 minutes.

Originally Posted by Motoki
Two Worlds II had a pretty cool system where you could break down any weapon or armor into its raw materials (wood, steel, iron, leather etc) and then use the raw materials to upgrade any weapon or armor piece. It was a good way to make all those extra weapons and armor you get useful and also to get rid of them without having to run to the store every 5 minutes.

Ah yes, I completely forgot about Two Worlds 2 and its crafting system, thanks for mentioning it. That's a perfect example of crafting that I personally enjoy. While I haven't played it yet, I'm sure that it makes a loot-heavy game much smoother in terms of managing acquired loot, as you pointed out, and to generally make looting much more worthwhile. I really love the idea of being able to improve items instead of going through the constant cycle of equipment becoming completely obsolete, and then needing to hunt around for new equipment.

Originally Posted by Nerevarine
I really love the idea of being able to improve items instead of going through the constant cycle of equipment becoming completely obsolete, and then needing to hunt around for new equipment.

Agree completely. It's much more fun to upgrade than to maintain. Every "crafting" system I have enjoyed focused on improving your stuff rather than replacing it.

Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative
Agree completely. It's much more fun to upgrade than to maintain. Every "crafting" system I have enjoyed focused on improving your stuff rather than replacing it.

That's a really good way to sum it up; upgrading/improving instead of replacing/maintaining. It also removes the frustrating (though extremely minor "problem" that is entirely superficial) situation of finding a piece of armor or a weapon that looks really appealing for your character, and then being forced to get rid of it when it becomes extremely underpowered later in the game - only to be replaced by a more powerful item that looks like garbage . Again, that's far from a big deal for me, but I like the concept of being able to upgrade and improve the items that I like instead of outright replacing them. Even though I probably wouldn't want to wear the same exact armor for the entire duration of a game either, it's just nice to have the option to keep what you like.

Was nanotechnology invented with widescreens ? No, because people 10x smarter than most of us didn´t think that WS is anything useful.

Originally Posted by Roi Danton
Smartphones do not have traditional resolutions.

Actually they do, like 1st.(?) world-wide selling multi-tasking cabable smartphone N95 for example back-in 2006/2007.

edit: btw, there are even technology oriented _capitalists_ who still likes 4:3
edit2: happy weekend everyone, lets rock !

Hey if you like widescreens, why 16:9, why not 16:1 ?